This issue is a left over from the Bush Administration. George Bush issued a presidential directive called Homeland Security Presidential Directive #12 (HSPD12) whose stated intent was to create a more uniform ID system to allow Federal employees to access Federal facilities. Note, and this is critical and often ignored, the employees in question are NOT engaged in ANY secret or sensitive work nor have access to places within Federal facilities where such work occurs. These are just average employees, students, academics and contractors engaged in NON-secret, NON-sensitive work. There is nothing wrong with Bush's original directive. Where it all went wrong is how the Bush Administration chose to implement it. This was at the peak of the Republican culture of fear and surveillance, so Bush's crew decided to implement the process in the most intrusive way possible. My wife and her fellow NASA scientists and various NASA facilities, including JPL, were presented with a form that in effect asked them to sign away their right to privacy, giving the government permission to investigate ANYTHING and EVERYTHING about them including their medical history and personal life. I would assume people on the left and right would agree that this is an excessively intrusive, not to mention costly, way to treat employees who have no contact with sensitive or secret matters. The implementation led to objections, and in some cases lawsuits, within places like the Department of Education, Bureau of Land Management, and NASA. The lawsuit with perhaps the most widespread impact is JPL Employees vs. NASA, Department of Commerce, and Caltech. This case pits some of America's top scientists and engineers against the US government bureaucracy in defense of the basic right to privacy in America.

I have covered this case almost from the beginning, since my wife brought it to my attention with a stack of printed out emails from NASA scientists discussing this. You can read the details in the following articles:

My Wife Faces Homeland Security Part I: Homeland Security Presidential Directive #12

My Wife Faces Homeland Security Part II: The Suitability Matrix

My Wife Faces Homeland Security Part III: The Resignation Letter

And the most recent info on the case, where it headed for the Supreme Court, can be found here.

And it is in the Supreme Court that the US Attorney General's office gets it wrong, essentially making a major error in how facilities like JPL function. This comes from the JPL scientists who are fighting the case:  read more »

In 2007 I came home from a long day at work followed by the Friday Happy Hour at my place of work. I was very tired and a tad tipsy. My wife greets me with a huge stack of printouts and tells me "You have to blog about this."

She never asks me to blog anything, so I knew it was big, but I was not ready to face anything that would take so much brain power. I said I'd look at it later, but my wife wouldn't let me brush it aside. I started reading...and knew if I could get permission to quote what I was holding I'd have an extremely important story. My wife handed me printouts of extensive email discussions among NASA scientists who were facing violations to their Constitutional Rights by Homeland Security, specifically Homeland Security Presidential Directive #12 (HSPD12). The discussion was mainly at the Jet Propulsion Lab in California but the Civil Rights violations were starting to be implemented at my wife's place of work, the Goddard Insitute of Space Sciences (GISS) in NYC.  read more »

From Senate approves Kagan for high court - CNN.com:

The 63-37 vote was mostly along party lines. Five GOP senators backed Kagan, and only one Democrat -- Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska -- opposed her. Republican leaders offered spirited floor opposition to the nominee, but were unable to muster a prolonged delay or filibuster of the vote.

Kagan is set to begin a lifetime position as the nation's 112th justice. She will be sworn into office Saturday afternoon, taking the traditional constitutional and judicial oaths. The newest justice will then be able to assume her court duties immediately.  read more »

Today the Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, gave corporations the same rights as citizens when it comes to the freedom of expression implicit in campaign donations. In other words, legislation limiting corporate donations to politicians and political causes have been overturned.

In terms of the effect this will have on elections, it is a terrible decision. However, Constitutional decisions are not based on fairness or the consequences of those decisions so much as what rights we are given by the Constitution. For years the ACLU has opposed many of the strongest campaign finance laws because they view them as limiting free speech. This is not the ACLU trying to help the rich and powerful. It is, in their eyes, the correct way to interpret the constitution and the civil libertarian view.

I have never decided whether I agree with them or not. It is a gray area. Usually, when faced with a gray area, I tend to prefer the civil libertarian view. Better to err in favor of rights than go too far the other way. So, despite being very much in favor of campaign finance reform and wanting as strict rules as possible, I have also been open to the ACLU arguments.  read more »

This is from awhile back, but never got around to posting it here. With the Sotomayor hearings coming up, this is worth keeping in mind.

I have known Jo Anne Simon for several years and she is currently one of the district leaders for my area. I have also endorsed her for City Council. Locally Jo Anne Simon is best known for being one of only a handful of district leaders to stand up to local corruption. Nationally, she is known for he role as an advocate for disabled rights. I recently learned that in this capacity she has first hand knowledge of what it is like to argue before Judge Sotomayor, and I think her comments are worth knowing as Sotomayor is scrutinized for her Supreme Court nomination.

This is from Jo Anne Simon's campaign website:  read more »